My next few blog entries will address the philosophical foundations of the concept of consensus. Given that libertarians reject the use of coercive force in cooperative endeavours, the concept of consensus is important, but often ignored by libertarian scholars. So I'll try to clear up a few conceptual puzzles.
First of all, for libertarians consensus is only relevant to a limited sphere of human action; namely, what J.S. Mill described as other-regarding actions. When I sat down to write this blog I did not ask anyone else if it's OK. Why? Because it's purely a self-regarding action! It's my time, effort, and resources. The act of me writing this blog will not invade the interests of anyone else. Hence, the first concept we need to explore is the idea of an "interest."
As a libertarian in the utilitarian tradition, I associate interests with pleasure and/or happiness. Thus, as individuals we all have greater and lesser interests which correspond to degrees of pleasure and pain. I obviously have an interest in writing this blog, even though it prevents me from pursuing other interests, such as grading 38 essay exams. Interests are basically ends (or ) goals, which implies that they are realized via means. Thus we pursue knowledge of not only our interests, but also the means of achieving those interests. Rational agents often willingly sacrifice lesser interests in order to realize greater interests, and sacrifice short-term interests for long-term interests. Fortunately, grading those exams advances long-term interests, and therefore I can put it off until this weekend. It looks like a painful weekend for me! Knowledge of the magnitude (greater/lesser) and temporal scale (long-term/short/term) of our individual interests is imperfect. I hope I'll be able to finish this blog in the next 30 minutes, but I might not. I also hope I'll experience a degree of pleasure when I finish it. If it turns out lousy, I won't publish it. Then I'll regret that I spent time writing instead of grading. For individuals, knowledge of very long-term interests and knowledge of how to realize those long-term interests is highly fallible. I'm hoping to retire in 9 years, but a lot can happen before then. I might die, I might win the lottery (probably not...I never buy lottery tickets), I might decide that teaching is more fun than retirement. Short-term interests are much easier. I'll be in class today at 11:00 AM, barring some unforseen invasion of my interests. I know (with relative certainty) what room to go to and what we're going to do (discuss Walmart bribery in Mexico).
The inverse of an interest is a harm, or more precisely a harm is an invasion of an interest.Thus, there are greater and lesser harms depending on the magnitude of the invaded interest. Thanks to the structure of the human brain and spinalcord, we pursue what we believe to be our interests and avoid what we perceive to be harms. Hence, I'd prefer retirement over pre-mature death. Of course, death might be really great...even better than retirement. I might get to play guitar with Les Paul! But given what I know right now, I prefer retirement. On the other hand, retirement will invade my interest in teaching, but advance my interests in playing guitar and traveling. So self-regarding actions involve trading off interests and harms and adopting various means (or plans) for realizing conflicting interests.
However, my retirement is not a purely self-regarding action. There are other stakeholders involved, namely my college and my wife. That's where consensus becomes relevant. I know with a fairly high degree of certainty, that the my college has an interest in me retiring. I can easily be replaced by a young, good-looking, intelligent recent graduate that would work for much less than I'm getting. In fact, my college might prefer that I retire sooner rather than later. In that case, hopefully we'd reach a consensus...unless the college unilaterally decides to coerce me into retirement. In that case, subsequent deliberations will be based less on my interests and the interests of the college than determining who holds legal coercive power over the other. For libertarians the forging of consensus based on the interests of stakeholders is always preferable to legal coercion. As for my wife...we've already reached a consensus. The best time for me to retire will be in 9 years, unless our interests change between now and then. Then again, by then my college's interests might also change.
In sum,knowledge of one's own interests and knowledge of how to realize those interests is difficult to ascertain, and therefore highly fallible...but ultimately doable. I've done OK so far. However, knowledge of the interests of other individuals interests and the collective interests of communities is much more problematic. My next blog will explore knowledge of collective interests and knowledge of how to achieve those interests....and of course, how that knowledge relates to forging consensus among stakeholders.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
The Economics of Friendship
Ok...I'm not an economist...but I play one on the Internet. I've been trying to sort out some of the philosophical puzzles that contribute to economic disagreements. Here's one puzzle that often eludes both economists and philosophers. I call it the "Economics of Friendship." First some basics...
Classical economic theory is about the distribution of resources. Most often it focuses on buying and selling of products and services between strangers. Today, most economic activity is, indeed, between strangers. I don't know who manufactured the various components of this computer, who assembled it, who delivered it to the retailer. etc. I don't know the salesman that sold it. Classical economics says that when buyers and sellers reason about transactions with strangers, they at least try to maximize their own self-interest. Buyers prefer transactions (products and services) that maximize quality and minimize costs. When multiple sellers compete buyers tend to get a better deal and when multiple buyers compete, sellers tend to get a better deal. That's the beauty of a "free market." It allows strangers to benefit from exchange. But what can we say about transactions between friends and families?
When I buy musical equipment I always check, first, with my friend Gordon at Western Hills Music. I buy all my strings from him, even though I pay about a buck more per pack...which would be irrational if I didn't know him. Of course, if I didn't know Gordon, I might decide to get those strings from him, anyway, because I'd spend more than $1 in gas to drive all the way to Guitar Center. Why waste the time, energy, and resources driving all that way to save $1? But that's not how I reason about it economically. On the other hand, if I were buying an expensive guitar, say a Gretch, I'd talk to Gordon first and see if he could get one for me and how much he'd have to charge me. He would figure it out and if I could get the same guitar at Guitar Center for $200 less, he'd say: "Ron, get it at Guitar Center (Or better Yet, get it online at Musician's Friend, and save taxes!) That would be irrational econiomic behavior on his part, at least from the standpoint of traditional economics. Although I'd probably buy that guitar online, I'd bring it to Gordon to set it up for me. I'd never ask him, beforehand, how much it will cost, and I'd never, get a second price from Guitar Center. If it doesn't need a setup, Gordon would say: "Ron, the setup is perfect! I just removed the original .010 roundwound strings for you, and put a new set of #.011 Flatwound strings for you." Guitar Center, however, would probably do some minor adjustment, charge me for a full setup, and (might) call me and ask what kind of strings I'd like.
What does all this mean? Well, Peter Singer and many other philosophers have argued that "ethics" consists in treating strangers as if they were friends. Therefore, a good person is "impartial." On the other hand, I'd argue that it makes much more sense to treat strangers impartially and friends partially. No one in their right mind would criticize me for giving one of my sons a guitar (as a gift) and NOT doing the same for a stranger. I would probably sell one of my guitars to a friend, for a lot less than I would a stranger. There's nothing wrong with that either. In fact, there's nothing wrong at all with either nepostism or cronyism in the world of one-on-one transactions. Problems arise when government and large corporations conspire to undermine those personal economic relationships by passing laws (taxes, regulations etc.) that make it more difficult for small businesses to enjoy the competitive advantages (and disadvantages) associated friendship. I don't know about you, but I prefer an economy where I can deal with both strangers and friends. So let's NOT let the big corporations and government surreptitiously destroy small businesses.
Classical economic theory is about the distribution of resources. Most often it focuses on buying and selling of products and services between strangers. Today, most economic activity is, indeed, between strangers. I don't know who manufactured the various components of this computer, who assembled it, who delivered it to the retailer. etc. I don't know the salesman that sold it. Classical economics says that when buyers and sellers reason about transactions with strangers, they at least try to maximize their own self-interest. Buyers prefer transactions (products and services) that maximize quality and minimize costs. When multiple sellers compete buyers tend to get a better deal and when multiple buyers compete, sellers tend to get a better deal. That's the beauty of a "free market." It allows strangers to benefit from exchange. But what can we say about transactions between friends and families?
When I buy musical equipment I always check, first, with my friend Gordon at Western Hills Music. I buy all my strings from him, even though I pay about a buck more per pack...which would be irrational if I didn't know him. Of course, if I didn't know Gordon, I might decide to get those strings from him, anyway, because I'd spend more than $1 in gas to drive all the way to Guitar Center. Why waste the time, energy, and resources driving all that way to save $1? But that's not how I reason about it economically. On the other hand, if I were buying an expensive guitar, say a Gretch, I'd talk to Gordon first and see if he could get one for me and how much he'd have to charge me. He would figure it out and if I could get the same guitar at Guitar Center for $200 less, he'd say: "Ron, get it at Guitar Center (Or better Yet, get it online at Musician's Friend, and save taxes!) That would be irrational econiomic behavior on his part, at least from the standpoint of traditional economics. Although I'd probably buy that guitar online, I'd bring it to Gordon to set it up for me. I'd never ask him, beforehand, how much it will cost, and I'd never, get a second price from Guitar Center. If it doesn't need a setup, Gordon would say: "Ron, the setup is perfect! I just removed the original .010 roundwound strings for you, and put a new set of #.011 Flatwound strings for you." Guitar Center, however, would probably do some minor adjustment, charge me for a full setup, and (might) call me and ask what kind of strings I'd like.
What does all this mean? Well, Peter Singer and many other philosophers have argued that "ethics" consists in treating strangers as if they were friends. Therefore, a good person is "impartial." On the other hand, I'd argue that it makes much more sense to treat strangers impartially and friends partially. No one in their right mind would criticize me for giving one of my sons a guitar (as a gift) and NOT doing the same for a stranger. I would probably sell one of my guitars to a friend, for a lot less than I would a stranger. There's nothing wrong with that either. In fact, there's nothing wrong at all with either nepostism or cronyism in the world of one-on-one transactions. Problems arise when government and large corporations conspire to undermine those personal economic relationships by passing laws (taxes, regulations etc.) that make it more difficult for small businesses to enjoy the competitive advantages (and disadvantages) associated friendship. I don't know about you, but I prefer an economy where I can deal with both strangers and friends. So let's NOT let the big corporations and government surreptitiously destroy small businesses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
